Concerning The Shining: Paradoxes Of Interpretation
Padraig L Henry
Concerning The Shining: Kubrick, Ciment & Paradoxes Of Interpretation
Padraig Henry
* * * * *
In discussing Stephen King`s novel of The Shining, Kubrick, in an
interview with Michel Ciment (from "Kubrick", 1982), suggested that,
"It seemed to strike an extraordinary balance between the
psychological and the supernatural in such a way as to lead you to
think that the supernatural would eventually be explained by the
psychological: "Jack must be imagining these things because he's
crazy". This allowed you to suspend your doubt of the supernatural
until you were so thoroughly into the story that you could accept it
almost without noticing." Clearly, Kubrick is arguing that King`s
book, as distinct from the film, relentlessly manipulates and seduces
the unsuspecting reader into uncritically, that is to say,
unconsciously, accepting the book`s supernatural precepts, as if by a
process of creeping osmosis.
Furthermore, for Kubrick, it was precisely the apparent seductiveness
which he "found so particularly clever about the way the novel was
written. As the supernatural events occurred you searched for an
explanation, and the most likely one seemed to be that the strange
things that were happening would finally be explained as the products
of Jack's imagination. It's not until Grady, the ghost of the former
caretaker who axed to death his family, slides open the bolt of the
larder door, allowing Jack to escape, that you are left with no other
explanation but the supernatural. The novel is by no means a serious
literary work, but the plot is for the most part extremely well worked
out, and for a film that is often all that really matters." But
Kubrick fundamentally departs from such narrative certainties in his
film. Firstly, the ghost of Grady is named Delbert, not Charles, as we
were previously informed during Jack`s interview. Secondly, this
Delbert is a waiter, not a caretaker. Kubrick is opening up the
possibility once again of paradoxical dual interpretations of Jack`s,
Danny`s, and Wendy`s encounters with the Overlook`s spectral
inhabitants: the joint likelihood of psychological projection and
paranormal intervention.
As Ciment maintains in his essay, Kubrick and The Fantastic (Kubrick,
1982), "Notwithstanding their evident differences of approach, such
theorists as Roger Caillois, Gerarad Lenne and Tzvetan Todorov concur
in the opinion that the fantastic represents a breach in the
recognized order of things so scandalous that neither experience nor
reason dares admit its existence; it therefore constitutes the shock
between what is real and what is imaginary, excluding forms of pure
fantasy in which nothing surprises us, nothing astounds us since, in
the realm of the subconscious, anything can happen."
It may be useful to explore Todorov`s thesis in more detail here, as
it serves to further illuminate the generic complexity of The Shining
and provides some insights into Kubrick`s own explanations in his
interview with Ciment. In The Fantastic: A Structural Approach To A
Literary Genre (1975), Todorov analyses this "liminal" genre which he
argues combines both the "uncanny" and the "marvelous". On the one
hand, the uncanny is experienced when the viewer or reader "decides
that the laws of reality remain intact and permit an explanation of
the phenomena described", while, on the other hand, the marvelous is
experienced when the viewer or reader "decides that new laws of nature
must be entertained to account for the phenomena." For Todorov, these
two genres represent the two binary extremes, but his main concern is
with those narratives which approximate to the genre which he terms
the "fantastic".
Todorov observes that in certain narratives "There occurs an event
which cannot be explained by the laws of this same familiar world. The
person who experiences the events must opt for one of two possible
solutions: either he is victim of an illusion of the senses, or a
product of the imagination - and laws of the world then remain what
they are; or else the event has indeed taken place, it is an integral
part of reality - but then this reality is controlled by laws unknown
to us." A story is representative of the "fantastic" if it maintains
the uncertainty and ambiguity of the viewer. It "occupies the duration
of this uncertainty. Once we choose one answer or the other, we leave
the fantastic for a neighbouring genre, the uncanny or the marvelous."
The uncanny thus corresponds to realism while the marvelous
corresponds to supernaturalism, and Todorov defines the fantastic as
"that hesitation experienced by a person who knows only the laws of
nature, confronting an apparently supernatural event."
In a recent post-structuralist examination of The Shining, Walter
Metz, (Toward a Post-Structural Influence in Film Genre Study:
Intertextuality and The Shining, Film Criticism, Vol. XXII, 1, Fall,
1997) rigorously argues against such binary oppositions as the uncanny
and the marvelous and instead postulates identifying the fantastic as
more representative of the reality of generic complexity in certain
films (as well as supporting the tenets of post-structural analysis).
Metz postulates that "As articulated in American film history, the
distinction between the melodrama and the horror film replay this
binary opposition between the uncanny and the marvelous. The melodrama
offers a generic tradition securely located in the uncanny. Critical
explorations of the genre frequently return to Freud`s "The Uncanny"
to argue this position."
What is unusual in this respect is Kubrick`s position as expressed in
his interview with Ciment. Unfortunately, Kubrick is conveying the
impression of mis-reading both his own film and Freud`s Das
Unheimliche when he argues, "A story of the supernatural cannot be
taken apart and analysed too closely. The ultimate test of its
rationale is whether it is good enough to raise the hairs on the back
of your neck. If you submit it to a completely logical and detailed
analysis it will eventually appear absurd. In his essay on the
uncanny, Das Unheimliche, Freud said that the uncanny is the only
feeling which is more powerfully experienced in art than in life. If
the genre required any justification, I should think this alone would
serve as its credentials." Is Kubrick confusing the uncanny with the
supernatural, the marvelous, here? This requires further
consideration.
Mary Ann Doane, in Home Is Where The Heart Is (British Film Institute,
1987), analyses the gothic subgenre of the melodrama (a subgenre
particularly applicable to The Shining) and draws attention to Freud`s
Das Unheimliche: "Freud`s rather long tracing of the linguistic
derivations of the word serve finally to demonstrate that heimlich
(belonging or pertaining to the home, familiar) is eventually equated
with its opposite unheimlich (strange, unfamiliar, uncanny) - `Thus
heimlich is a word the meaning of which develops towards an
ambivalence, until it finally coincides with its opposite,
unheimlich.` This sliding of signification is possible only because
the word for `home` is semantically overdetermined and can be situated
in relation to the gaze. For the home or house connotes not only the
familiar but also what is secret, concealed, hidden from sight."
Walter Metz maintains that such an analysis "explains the workings of
many American melodramas." The Shining`s plot structure, like Nicholas
Ray`s Bigger Than Life, "precisely charts out the uncanny: the
familiar domestic problems of the heim conceal the unheim, the darker
desires of familial annihilation and horrific behaviour."
And as Ciment further argues in Kubrick And The Fantastic, "When Jack
arrives at the Overlook, he describes this sensation of familiarity,
of well-being ("It's very homey"), he would "like to stay here
forever", he confesses even to having "never been this happy, or
comfortable anywhere", refers to a sense of dčja vu and has the
feeling that he has "been here before". "When someone dreams of a
locality or a landscape," according to Freud, "and while dreaming
thinks "I know this, I've been here before", one is authorized to
interpret that place as substituting for the genital organs and the
maternal body."
The Shining can be seen as connecting back to the melodramas of the
1950s by considering David N Rodowick`s Madness, Authority, and
Ideology (BFI, 1987), where he argues that the melodrama utilises an
Oedipal structure in order to bring the narrative to the verge of
complete collapse while still retaining purely rational explanations.
In The Shining, the horror elements (the marvelous or supernatural)
constitute the point at which the narrative collapses, but the Oedipal
side of the drama creates that "hesitation" which moves us away from
the supernatural once again, into what Todorov termed the "fantastic".
Rodowick defines the subversive melodrama as "Split between madness
and authority, the melodrama could either adopt an arbitrary and
purely formal resolution, or else it could let its crisis of
identification follow their self-destructive course (in which case the
power of authority came into question)." And Metz maintains that The
Shining chooses the latter course, "in which Jack accepts madness,
thereby calling into question his status as authority figure."
As Ciment concludes, "Emotional family relationships are therefore a
central concern of The Shining. Home and hearth, attacked from outside
in A Clockwork Orange (the writer Mr. Alexander, a victim of his
double, Alex), become with Barry Lyndon and especially The Shining the
private arena of every conflict."
Metz goes on to compare The Shining with Ray`s Bigger Than Life
(1956), in which "a middle-class American school teacher, Ed Avery, is
stricken ill by a severe form of arthritis, for which his doctor
prescribes the then experimental drug cortisone. As a result of his
inability to control the use of the drug, Ed begins to act
irrationally and abuse his wife and son. The disintegration of the
family becomes the theme of the film. The drug is merely the means
through which Ed`s delusions of grandeur surface, revealing the
inherent inadequacies of the patriarchal family structure." In The
Shining the sheer isolation of the Kafkaesque Overlook (and Jack`s own
past alcoholic addiction) replaces the device of the drug, cortisone,
in Bigger Than Life as the plot mechanism which triggers the
disintegration of the family.
Ed soon develops the belief that he has the solution to the nation`s
educational crisis and informs his family that he wishes to get away
to write about his pedagogical ideas. But Ed can`t even teach his son
how to do elementary maths properly and eventually decides to kill the
boy and himself. Like in The Shining, an outside party, the bachelor
Wally, saves the boy. But unlike the African-American, Halloran, in
The Shining, Wally lives on to become the saviour of the family and so
the film achieves narrative closure and, ultimately, a reinforcement
of patriarchy. But The Shining, on the other hand, insists on an
Oedipal resolution of the conflict between Jack and Danny. As Metz
observes, "When Jack chases Danny into the maze with ax in hand and
states, "I`m right behind you Danny", he is predicting Danny`s future
as well as trying to scare the boy ... To have Halloran survive and
Jack die would mean the replacement of the white patriarchal father
figure with the kind father Halloran." Kubrick not only departs from
the resolutions of conventional melodramas, not only overlays a
complex horror narrative, but refuses to present comfortable
solutions, instead framing the film`s conclusions in a fractured
metaphysical vortex (just as he did in 2001).
And Oedipal tensions will once again be the concern of Eyes Wide Shut,
which as Ciment commented in 1982: "his unfulfilled ambition (dating
from the early seventies) of filming Arthur Schnitzler's Rhapsody: A
Dream Novel found an outlet in The Shining. Schnitzler's tale deals
with the relation between the real and the unreal through the story of
a husband, the father of a little seven year-old girl, who spends a
night in Vienna during which reality is coloured by his imagination.
The mutual infidelities of the parent couple -- whether dreamt or
fantasized -- reveal the psychic urges of their inner life."
In contrast, as Metz argues, "the major contemporary American horror
films, while opening up the possibility of the uncanny, resolve
themselves according to the logic of the marvelous." Hitchcock`s
Psycho provides the archetypal template, where the psychiatrist`s
hilarious rationalisations of Norman`s collapse into psychosis at the
conclusion of the film point to the uncanny: Norman`s obsessions are
the consequence of domestic family traumas. But at the end of the film
we see the skeleton of Norman`s mother superimposed over Norman`s
face, an unproblematical confirmation of the supernatural or marvelous
- Norman is possessed by his mother`s ghost. As with most horror
films, the resolution is strictly located in the marvelous.
Ciment suggests to Kubrick that, "Of course there is a danger that
some audiences may misunderstand what you say and think that one can
dispense altogether with reason, falling into the clouded mysticism
which is currently so popular in America."
To which Kubrick responds, "People can misinterpret almost anything so
that it coincides with views they already hold. They take from art
what they already believe, and I wonder how many people have ever had
their views about anything important changed by a work of art?"
After the complete collapse of time and space within the narrative
dynamic of The Shining (a characteristic further reinforced by some
unusual editing practices ) and its invasion and total replacement by
Jack`s unconscious, Jack finally disappears into the vortex, the black
hole of the Overlook, to re-emerge as a singularity absorbed and
assimilated into the hotel`s very fabric, America`s cultural
mythology.
But for the viewers of The Shining the central final concern is
whether we wish to attribute these visual phenomena to supernatural
causes (in accordance with the conservative prerogatives of
puritanical and superstitious horror genre precepts), whether we see
them as part of Kubrick`s aesthetic melodramatic strategy of visually
objectifying the chaotic mind-sets, the Id or the unconscious, of the
film`s principal characters, or whether, as Kubrick finally resolves
in the film, to remain open-ended (agnostic) and testify to the
importance of both (the "fantastic") while committing oneself to
neither, suspending final judgement. Reason must acknowledge the
legitimacy of the unconscious without resorting to mysticism.
MarkExact4
Thanks for the great post Padraig!
Unfortunately, you forgot to comment on the problem you're having about
Hallorann's hacked-off arm :)
Padraig wrote:
>Mark, thanks for you extensive frame-by-frame description of the
>controversial scenes in question. I`ve just posted an article on
>another thread, "Concerning The Shining", which addresses many of the
>issues raised by your post.
Thanks to you too :) But it didn't address your assumptions that Hallorann's
arm was hacked off. As I previously mentioned, I don't see Hallorann's arm as
too crucial, since it is not true anyway. Not true by my reckoning, nor by
anyone who can see both arms very clearly in the film. I'm just wondering why
you didn't have any further comment on it. If you made a mistake, then so be
it. I don't mean to sound like a prickly little prosecuting attorney here
(<g>), but...do you still think that Hallorann is missing an arm? Let us
know....
>In discussing Stephen King`s novel of The Shining, Kubrick, in an
>interview with Michel Ciment (from "Kubrick", 1982), suggested that,
>"It seemed to strike an extraordinary balance between the
>psychological and the supernatural in such a way as to lead you to
>think that the supernatural would eventually be explained by the
>psychological: "Jack must be imagining these things because he's
>crazy". This allowed you to suspend your doubt of the supernatural
>until you were so thoroughly into the story that you could accept it
>almost without noticing." Clearly, Kubrick is arguing that King`s
>book, as distinct from the film, relentlessly manipulates and seduces
>the unsuspecting reader into uncritically, that is to say,
>unconsciously, accepting the book`s supernatural precepts, as if by a
>process of creeping osmosis.
Well, already you've taken the Ciment interview and placed your own assumptions
into it. Have you ever read Stephen King's 'The Shining'? It isn't required
reading by any means to enjoy and appreciate Kubrick's film. And it is not the
most interesting thing in the world to read. But, it's not that bad a read
either :) Most of all, whether one likes it or not, it is important to read
all of it to understand the "primary" element of the horror story that Kubrick
has made. Not that the other levels of the film (which also may be viewed as
primary) are any less important. Like I have said all along, the film has many
levels to it. To ignore one level, or to place more importance on one element
over the other is to ignore Kubrick's intentions. I can *see* this in his film.
The horror and supernatural elements are there in the film. They're not there
to serve as a secondary aspect or "solution" to further the allegorical ones.
And they certainly aren't there to invalidate themselves.
I am assuming that you never read it, or possibly you skimmed it. Unless I am
very wrong, this is what is hinted at when you speak of the differences between
Kubrick's film and King's novel, in "rewriting" the Ciment interview. Rest
assured that Kubrick read all of King's novelůmany times over <g> And, VERY
important, let's not confuse King's novel with King's mini-series. They are NOT
one in the same. Keep in mind that King rewrote his story for the mini-series.
The mini-series is far too obvious, and not exactly, in presentation or in
execution, what King himself wrote about in his novel. And Kubrick certainly
did not base his film on the mini-series. The mini-series was, as I have
previously stated in other posts, a watered-down, almost Disney-like adaptation
of the novel. What Disney might of done if he had drank too much and if he were
pissed off :) [no reflection aimed at King here].
You should not have separated the two Ciment interview statements made by
Kubrick, and you should not have tried to write your own opinions into the
interview. He is not *arguing* that King's novel "relentlessly manipulates and
seduces the unsuspecting reader into uncritically, that is to say,
unconsciously, accepting the book's supernatural precepts, as if by a process
of creeping osmosis". What Kubrick said is:
"It seemed to strike an extraordinary balance between the psychological and the
supernatural in such a way as to lead you to think that the supernatural would
eventually be explained by the psychological: "Jack must be imagining these
things because he's crazy". This allowed you to suspend your doubt of the
supernatural until you were so thoroughly into the story that you could accept
it almost without noticing." And then, "It's what I found so particularly
clever about the way the novel was written. As the supernatural events occurred
you searched for an explanation, and the most likely one seemed to be that the
strange things that were happening would finally be explained as the products
of Jack's imagination. It's not until Grady, the ghost of the former caretaker
who axed to death his family, slides open the bolt of the larder door, allowing
Jack to escape, that you are left with no other explanation but the
supernatural."
And so does this occur in the film :) Kubrick is not just talking about
King's novel hereů.he's also talking about the film that he made.
"The novel is by no means a serious literary work, but the plot is for the most
part extremely well worked out, and for a film that is often all that really
matters."
Ummmm...interesting, isn't it? It doesn't sound like a man that has a lot to
hide, does it? He sounds downright pragmatic about the whole thing. The film
works on many symbolic and allegorical levels....AND, it also works on the
level of which Kubrick states, and of that which King wrote in his novel. Don't
be afraid that Kubrick liked a lot of what King had written. But Kubrick took
the film to many different levels.....simultaneously.
>But Kubrick fundamentally departs from such narrative certainties in his film.
No he doesn't :) He simply adds to them on many different visual and aural
levels.
>Firstly, the ghost of Grady is named Delbert, not Charles, as we
>were previously informed during Jack`s interview. Secondly, this
>Delbert is a waiter, not a caretaker.
Delbert Grady is a *former* caretaker and a waiter in King's novel, just as he
is in Kubrick's film. Now the duplicity of the names Charles and Delbert...this
is something that a lot of AMKers hold very dear to themselves. When I first
saw the film, I thought that Barry Nelson's way of saying "Charles Grady" was
sort of casual and off-the-cuff. Sort of like maybe Ullman was *supposed* to
have forgotten his real first name, or that he didn't want to use his real
first name, as a way of shielding the public (and the hired help Jack) from the
possibility of looking further into the hotel's tragic "occurrence".....a
keep-it-out-of the-newspapers mentality of a manager of a famous hotel.....that
sort of thing.
But, the duplicity theme is not to be overlooked. In this case it is not too
abstract. I only wish that Kubrick had given some further explanation of the
"scrapbook" with newspaper clippings clearly visible on the desk in the scene
with Jack telling Wendy "whaddya want me to do about it?" in the Colorado
Lounge (a scrapbook which plays a larger part in King's novel). If in fact
Grady is only a product of Jack's delusion, then why does Jack see his picture
"in the newspapers"? Okay, so he saw Charles Grady in the newspapers, and then
conjured him up as "Delbert" as way of talking himself into killing his wife
and son. Or perhaps he's only saying and making up the fact that he saw him in
the papersů.what an extraordinary and vivid delusion :) This is an
interesting level to the film, but.....honestly....not *nearly* as interesting
as the possibility of Grady being a real supernatural entity, "called up" by
the hotel to talk Jack into killing his son Danny, so the hotel can have Danny
(and Danny's abilities) for its own...forever and ever and ever. I am not
saying that the allegorical aspect does not work, or is invalid. It's just
doesn't seem like Kubrick would have thought this as interesting as making the
film work on both levels.
I think we all remember Kubrick's original idea (or one of his original ideas)
to end the film: Ullman is showing around the new caretaker and the caretaker's
family, and Jack, Wendy, and Danny are eating at a dining room table. But
Ullman and the new caretaker family cannot see the three of them, since they
are nothing but "ghosts", meaning that Jack succeeded in killing them all, just
as Grady had done. After telling King about this ending, King remarked that the
audience might feel very cheated. Anyway, the fact that Kubrick did not use
this rather "sad" ending tells me that he was very interested in the
supernatural from the very beginning. He may have been thinking of the other
aspects at the same time, but he certainly always had the elements of *real*
supernatural on his mind from the get-go. And no, he didn't strip the story or
his film of these things, he merely augmented them with other interesting
aspects.
>Kubrick is opening up the
>possibility once again of paradoxical dual interpretations of Jack`s,
>Danny`s, and Wendy`s encounters with the Overlook`s spectral
>inhabitants: the joint likelihood of psychological projection and
>paranormal intervention.
Yeah there ya go....opening up the possibilities. But I wouldn't say that the
character of Wendy is having any delusional encounters, because ya see....on
the level of a horror film or not, Wendy sees things that she has no real
business "conjuring up" on her own, without the supernatural elements being
real :) See what I mean? She first sees the bear and man having oral sex,
then she sees Hallorann's dead body (which we have to know is real), then the
entire lobby "reverted" back to an unkempt state, with the hotel's past,
skeletons and all, and then the blood coming out of the elevators. If these
things were only mere "visions of delusion, or dreams", then why should Wendy
conjure them up on her own? In particular, the lobby with the skeletons? She is
Danny's mother, but nowhere within Kubrick's story is it even hinted that Wendy
has any paranormal abilities. Ditto for Jack. Only Danny and Hallorann do (and
Danny has it much stronger than Hallorann). Keep in mind this is all based on
what is being presented in Kubrick's film, and not in the novel. And symbolism
or allegory can take care of or invalidate any of these surmisesůbut is this
what Kubrick intended?
It may seem that I am trying to accept *only* the supernatural elements of
Kubrick's film, but I'm really not. The other elements are important and should
*never* be overlooked. For me (and this goes for anyone really), it all comes
down to what seems more interesting. Logic plays a part in it too, since many
of the allegorical levels of the film seem too abstract at times, and too
disconnectedůtoo easily solved, without the benefit of suspending one's
disbelief in the possibility of "life after death....the promises of
immortality".....
(continued in what I hope will turn out to be the next sequential post)
MarkExact4
(Continued from Number 1)
Thank you for posting all of the opinions of others and your own remarks on
them, as it is all very interesting and thought provoking. But here again, as I
said in the post to Derek, it would be wonderful if you could make your points
with *much* more direct examples from the film.
Padraig wrote:
>Unfortunately, Kubrick is conveying the
>impression of mis-reading both his own film and Freud`s Das
>Unheimliche when he argues, "A story of the supernatural cannot be
>taken apart and analysed too closely. The ultimate test of its
>rationale is whether it is good enough to raise the hairs on the back
>of your neck. If you submit it to a completely logical and detailed
>analysis it will eventually appear absurd. In his essay on the
>uncanny, Das Unheimliche, Freud said that the uncanny is the only
>feeling which is more powerfully experienced in art than in life. If
>the genre required any justification, I should think this alone would
>serve as its credentials." Is Kubrick confusing the uncanny with the
>supernatural, the marvelous, here? This requires further
>consideration.
What's also interesting is that Freud and Kubrick lived in essentially two
different time periods. Freud died when Kubrick was a pre-teen. Misreading his
own film? That's interesting. Perhaps he did take a liberty with Freud's
writings, but misreading his own film?
What if anything can you find inherently wrong or misguided in this statement?
"A story of the supernatural cannot be taken apart and analyzed too closely.
The ultimate test of its rationale is whether it is good enough to raise the
hairs on the back of your neck. If you submit it to a completely logical and
detailed analysis it will eventually appear absurd."
Padraig wrote:
>As Ciment concludes, "Emotional family relationships are therefore a
>central concern of The Shining. Home and hearth, attacked from outside
>in A Clockwork Orange (the writer Mr. Alexander, a victim of his
>double, Alex), become with Barry Lyndon and especially The Shining the
>private arena of every conflict."
And so too is the Torrance family "attacked from the outside" Outside "forces"
beyond their immediate perception, knowledge, and control. I could go so far as
to give the reasons for the balance of the paranormal/psychological with the
supernatural, by giving many examples from King's novel, of which Kubrick
clearly uses a great deal more than you think (based on what appears in
Kubrick's film). But I think you should read the novel, and if you have
already, read it again. I believe the reason you're having a problem accepting
the supernatural elements of the film (if that is what's happening), is because
there is an empty space of understanding, an empty space where the novel fits
it. A novel which Kubrick used more than most people think, people who either
have not read the novel, or have not read it carefully enough.
Padraig wrote:
>In contrast, as Metz argues, "the major contemporary American horror
>films, while opening up the possibility of the uncanny, resolve
>themselves according to the logic of the marvelous." Hitchcock`s
>Psycho provides the archetypal template, where the psychiatrist`s
>hilarious rationalisations of Norman`s collapse into psychosis at the
>conclusion of the film point to the uncanny: Norman`s obsessions are
>the consequence of domestic family traumas. But at the end of the film
>we see the skeleton of Norman`s mother superimposed over Norman`s
>face, an unproblematical confirmation of the supernatural or marvelous
>- Norman is possessed by his mother`s ghost. As with most horror
>films, the resolution is strictly located in the marvelous.
I'll have to debate you on Psycho at greater length another time. Here's a
thought Padraig…instead of quoting what other's have written….try writing your
own ideas. I'm not saying that quoting some of the finest ideas and analysis on
subject matter is a bad thing. Not at all. And the writings and quotations you
have used are very stimulating. But this is not the idea of Psycho at all. I
think you may be getting confused because of what others have written. He is
possessed by his mother's ghost?? Simply because Hitchcock superimposed the
skeleton over Norman's head at the conclusion? Now you're trying to say that
Psycho's resolution was answered with the supernatural, which is not true, and
that The Shining only uses the supernatural as a means to justify a very
un-supernatural conclusion. You've got to include the real supernatural into
The Shining in the first place. Just borrow whatever supernatural elements that
you think are real from Psycho and place them into The Shining. :) Always
remember that The Shining works on many levels.
Padraig wrote:
>To which Kubrick responds, "People can misinterpret almost anything so
>that it coincides with views they already hold. They take from art
>what they already believe, and I wonder how many people have ever had
>their views about anything important changed by a work of art?"
Very true. And you should have taken even more from the interview. I am
definitely paraphrasing here, but Kubrick goes on to say that "I hope the film
has given everyone a good scare", and then he talks about how he "hoped that
the viewer may have considered that there may be more than we realize waiting
for us beyond the grave." Once again, I am paraphrasing. There is much more to
the interview than you posted. But, as he said, "People can misinterpret almost
anything so that it coincides with views they already hold" This is why I am
more inclined to be interested in what Kubrick has to say about his own work,
rather than what others have written about it.
Padraig wrote:
>After the complete collapse of time and space within the narrative
>dynamic of The Shining (a characteristic further reinforced by some
>unusual editing practices )
Here again, give some specific examples from the film of "unusual editing
practices".
Padraig wrote:
>Reason must acknowledge the legitimacy of the unconscious without resorting to
mysticism.
Without resorting to mysticism? There are laws and rules for making a
psychological/paranormal/allegorical/supernatural horror film? Nonsense. If you
don't appreciate the "fantastic" without reason, or what we know of on this
planet and in our reality as "rationale", then how did you ever appreciate
2001: A Space Odyssey? True, there is always a rationale, but you're talking
about themes and ideas that go beyond rationalizing on a purely intellectual
level. Don't over intellectualize the fantastic too much. You might miss a
great deal, both in films and in literature (and in King's novel, which is
almost what we consider literature :) )
Please try not to avoid the problem of Hallorann's hacked arm. I know that it's
not there in the film, but I want to make sure what you think about it. Thanks
and take care ;-)
Mark Oates
M4RV1N
>(MarkExact4)
writes:
(Quoting Kubrick)
> "It's what I found so particularly
>clever about the way the novel was written. As the supernatural
events>occurred
>you searched for an explanation, and the most likely one seemed to be that>the
>strange things that were happening would finally be explained as the products
>of Jack's imagination. It's not until Grady, the ghost of the former
>caretaker
>who axed to death his family, slides open the bolt of the larder door,
>allowing
>Jack to escape, that you are left with no other explanation but the
>supernatural."
>And so does this occur in the film :) Kubrick is not just talking about
>King's novel here….he's also talking about the film that he made.
Is he? I think he's talking about what he likes in the novel, and what, on a
deeper level, he >extends< in the film.
Over the years, my number one (and really my only) method of understanding what
Kubrick is doing in his films is to watch them and think about them. I have a
question for you.
Imagine a shot over Jack's shoulder, looking towards the pantry door. We hear
the bolt click, we see the handle move, the door swings open, and there's
Grady. Perhaps handing Jack the ax. Why didn't Kubrick create this scene?
Why did he choose to merely show Jack standing motionless while we "hear" the
bolt click?
Here's what Diane Johnson said about the kinds of ghosts artists can make use
of: "If Henry VIII sees Anne Boleyn walking the bloody tower, she's a real
ghost, but she's also caused by his hatred." In this particular film, as we've
seen, two things can be possible at once...
I have great respect for your opinions, I just think there are more layers of
this onion to peel away than you might think right now.
Mark Ervin
MarkExact4
M4RV1N writes:
>Is he? I think he's talking about what he likes in the novel, and what, on
>a deeper level, he >extends< in the film.
And this is what I've already stated *many times* in previous posts. :) In
fact, I've said it so many times, I surprised that people don't start driving
by my house and shooting out my porch light by now.
I essentially agree with Padraig (and anyone), that there are many levels to
the film, whether it be allegorical or symbolic or what have you. What I can't
understand is why he so openly rejects the obvious presence of the supernatural
as one of the films many multifaceted layers. And then there's the problem of
Hallorann's hacked-off arm, which I'm sure he doesn't actually see, but we'll
see what he says about it after he takes a closer look. And now there's the
problem of Psycho too :)
>Over the years, my number one (and really my only) method of understanding
>what Kubrick is doing in his films is to watch them and think about them.
That's a coincidence...so do I. I watch them countless times and think about
them. I read literature that was written about the films, about the films
aspects and themes, and symbolism and social/political/intellectual
commentaries, but I also rely on the film itself, and what Kubrick has to say
about it (not what I think Kubrick is saying about it, and not what I think
Kubrick is trying to hide from me, or trick me into not seeing).
> I have a question for you…..Imagine a shot over Jack's shoulder, looking
towards the pantry >door. We hear the bolt click, we see the handle move, the
door swings open, and there's
>Grady. Perhaps handing Jack the ax. Why didn't Kubrick create this scene?
>Why did he choose to merely show Jack standing motionless while we "hear" the
>bolt click?
I already did mention this in a previous post. And Jack does *not* stand
motionless. Look at his face. We can actually see what Grady is doing by
looking at the expression on Jack's face (and this is a film that relies on our
aural senses, and not just our visual ones). If we wanted to say that Wendy or
Danny or anyone else really opened the door, this places this scene (and many
others) into another "realm" of the non-linear, but this is a multi-faceted
film. Everything is happening on its own level *simutaniously*. If we are to
accept the supernatural (which is not that difficult), it is superflous to
actually show Grady opening the door and smiling back at Jack. Much better to
stay on Jack and hear the sounds of a real supernatural incarnate unlock a
locked door...for a man who is being set free to kill his family.
Besides, if Kubrick did cut away from Jack, on a purely straight-forward
narrative level, wouldn't this remind you of a TV movie or something? Look what
Kubrick does in TS (and other films). Instead of going for the old cliché of
Jack popping out at Wendy in the Colorado Lounge (as King wrote in the novel
and mini-series), Kubrick takes his time by moving slowly along the photos on
the immediate wall, then Jack slides into view and says "How do you like it?"
You know what, this still made the audience who I saw the film with, jump and
scream. But Kubrick did avoid the cliché. It's known in my neighborhood as good
filmmaking.
>Here's what Diane Johnson said about the kinds of ghosts artists can make use
>of: "If Henry VIII sees Anne Boleyn walking the bloody tower, she's a real
>ghost, but she's also caused by his hatred." In this particular film, as
>we've seen, two things can be possible at once...
Bingo.
>I have great respect for your opinions
Thank you. And I have great respect for yours.
>I just think there are more layers of this onion to peel away than you might
think >right now.
Oh don't worry about me m' lad :) There are many layers...and I've seen and
read about them all. Some of the layers seem just a wee bit thin to me...thin
and not as interesting as the real onion.
Mark Oates
Peter Gahan
Well done, Mark. I'm with you 98% of the way. I couldn't quite get
Padraig's essay. That TS is about a dysfunctional family? DIdn't we know
that already?
And as for the "central final concerns"... best, perhaps, to pass over in
silence. I find PH's occassional posts far more interresting and
suggestive and wish he had pursued more of them in the essay.
However, there are two things I find problematic in your reponse. The
first is your wistful wish that SK had shown us more about the scrapbook.
I, at first, felt exactly the same, because I had read the book before
seeing the movie. In fact, I had hoped that the US version of TS would
have more about the scrapbook in it. [Ididn't see the US version until
three or four years after the film came out.] But, no. The scrapbook
"seems to have been deliberately buried" (sic) in SK's narrative method
here. If you only know the film, you will not notice the scrapbook on
first viewing, and hence you will not know its importance in the story.
That only comes later in the red restroom scene when Jack says he read
about the Grady murders "in the newspapers." And, yet it is extremely
prominent (occupying lots of screen space) in several shots in the scene
where Jack tells Wendy not to disturb him anymore when he is "working."
What SK is asking us to do here is "to shine". Either, we have to watch
the film again (which all of us have) and make the connection. Once made,
you wonder how you ever missed noticing the scrapbook the first time round
because SK has made it so obvious. Or else, if you are really good at
"shining" you can "remember" and work your way back and out of the
Kubrickean maze that way. [And I think the posts about Frances Yates'
wonderful book The Art of Memory are extremely relevant here.] And, at
the same time we have to be wary of the "dead ends" if you'll forgive the
pun in this deadly maze. The conflation of Charles and Delbert Grady
which SK is inviting us to make, but which we must not make if we are to
make sense of the maze. Don't forget Danny (who has the power of shining)
gets out of the maze simply because he got to know it (with his mother)
and could "remember" his way out. [Shining/ remembering/making
meaning/using a certain powere of imagination are the most powerful
equivalences for me in the film (with Tony playing the part of film
director ie providing us with visions), but that's another story]. In
brief, in terms of narrative method, SK is typically eschewing the
redundancy so beloved of Hollywood scriptwriting; what he does witht he
scrapbook is the clearest evidence of that.
My other slight quibble is when you state that only Danny and Halloran
have the ability to shine. And, here, it seems to me you are replicating
Padraig's inflexible obtuseness ;-) If that is so there is no story at
all! We are only told that Danny and Halloran have the shining, but isn't
the story, purely at story level, the working out of the consequences of
Jack having the ability to some degree? and even Wendy is shining by the
end of the movie - and more sucessfully than Jack with all his denial!
REMEMBER the shot of Jack shining Wendy and Danny in the centre of the
maze? what does he do with this knowledge? Nothing. No wonder he gets
trapped at the end in the maze, frozen in the snow like a hideous parody
of the Lincoln memorial (as I think Paul Mayersburg has suggested).
Peter
--
"No reviewer has ever illuminated any aspect of my work for
me," - Stanley Kubrick (1972)
Padraig L Henry
On 5 Apr 1998 04:18:43 GMT, marke...@aol.com (MarkExact4) wrote:
>Thanks for the great post Padraig!
>
>Unfortunately, you forgot to comment on the problem you're having about
>Hallorann's hacked-off arm :)
And
>But it didn't address your assumptions that Hallorann's
>arm was hacked off. As I previously mentioned, I don't see Hallorann's arm as
>too crucial, since it is not true anyway. Not true by my reckoning, nor by
>anyone who can see both arms very clearly in the film. I'm just wondering why
>you didn't have any further comment on it. If you made a mistake, then so be
>it. I don't mean to sound like a prickly little prosecuting attorney here
>(<g>), but...do you still think that Hallorann is missing an arm? Let us
>know....
And:
>And then there's the problem of
>Hallorann's hacked-off arm, which I'm sure he doesn't actually see, but we'll
>see what he says about it after he takes a closer look. And now there's the
>problem of Psycho too :)
Well thanks for all your posts too, Mark.
The whole future of civilisation depends on resolving Hallorann`s
enigmatic dismembered arm, Mark :-). I`ll certainly say one thing
though: Your current frenetic output is certainly considerable. But
you seem to have adopted the position of refuting anything I say about
The Shining because of a pre-existing unresolved non-issue: Look,
there is definitely >something< amiss about that shot of Hallorann
lying dead on the floor. I`m not imagining it nor are the writers of
countless analyses of the film who allude to that scene. You argue
that it is due to the distorting effects of a zoom shot. So be it. So
let`s drop it. (And I do appreciate that this is your area of
expertise.)
Padraig wrote:
>In contrast, as Metz argues, "the major contemporary American horror
>films, while opening up the possibility of the uncanny, resolve
>themselves according to the logic of the marvelous." Hitchcock`s
>Psycho provides the archetypal template, where the psychiatrist`s
>hilarious rationalisations of Norman`s collapse into psychosis at the
>conclusion of the film point to the uncanny: Norman`s obsessions are
>the consequence of domestic family traumas. But at the end of the film
>we see the skeleton of Norman`s mother superimposed over Norman`s
>face, an unproblematical confirmation of the supernatural or marvelous
>- Norman is possessed by his mother`s ghost. As with most horror
>films, the resolution is strictly located in the marvelous.
Mark responds:
>I'll have to debate you on Psycho at greater length another time. Here's a
>thought Padraig…instead of quoting what other's have written….try writing your
>own ideas. I'm not saying that quoting some of the finest ideas and analysis on
>subject matter is a bad thing. Not at all. And the writings and quotations you
>have used are very stimulating.
What >are< you saying, Mark? Ignore the research, ideas, and
contributions of others? Drawing on and learning from the ideas of
others to support, advance or refute a theory is how we advance our
knowledge. Your own ideas might have much more substance if you could
corroborate them with some supporting evidence.
>But this is not the idea of Psycho at all. I
>think you may be getting confused because of what others have written.
It is you who is getting confused by your refusal to learn from the
research of others.
>He is
>possessed by his mother's ghost?? Simply because Hitchcock superimposed the
>skeleton over Norman's head at the conclusion? Now you're trying to say that
>Psycho's resolution was answered with the supernatural, which is not true,
Says who?
>Always remember that The Shining works on many levels.
You should try taking your own advice :-)
Padraig
MarkExact4
Padraig writes:
>The whole future of civilisation depends on resolving Hallorann`s
>enigmatic dismembered arm, Mark :-). I`ll certainly say one thing
>though: Your current frenetic output is certainly considerable. But
>you seem to have adopted the position of refuting anything I say about
>The Shining because of a pre-existing unresolved non-issue: Look,
>there is definitely >something< amiss about that shot of Hallorann
>lying dead on the floor. I`m not imagining it nor are the writers of
>countless analyses of the film who allude to that scene. You argue
>that it is due to the distorting effects of a zoom shot. So be it. So
>let`s drop it. (And I do appreciate that this is your area of
>expertise.)
No, I don't "refute" things that you say about TS because of your claims of
Hallorann's hacked-off arm :) First you insisted that his arm is hacked off,
now it's "there is definitely >something< amiss about that shot of Hallorann
lying dead on the floor". Are you speaking of his arm still? Or are you
speaking of something else now? :) Don't be evasive son.....spit it
out....this is a newsgroup. And here you are again, bringing up what *others*
have written and analyzed about that scene. Why not post a few portions of
those articles (if they're not at the upcoming upgraded TKS). Or better
yet....*you* tell me and everyone else *in your own words* what it is that you
see in that scene or in that shot. Don't be shy....this is a newsgroup. We're
supposed to be here to help each other and exchange ideas in understanding
Kubrick's work....not play dueling banjos with each other :) Kubrick won't
mind if you tell us. He'd be right proud of you.
If there is no hacked-off arm, then why did you bring it up in the first place?
Well, you could have been in error....that's okay. But let us know what it is
that you think is amiss.
>What >are< you saying, Mark? Ignore the research, ideas, and
>contributions of others? Drawing on and learning from the ideas of
>others to support, advance or refute a theory is how we advance our
>knowledge. Your own ideas might have much more substance if you could
>corroborate them with some supporting evidence.
I'll tell ya what....I'll find some things that *Hitchcock* said about his own
film, and you do the same. Then we'll post them. I have *NEVER* seen any
serious literature that would have me believe that Psycho is leading us to the
conclusion of a serial killer, and then because of a single few seconds of film
at the conclusion (and a purely symbolically visual one at that), the whole
film has been about "possession" by the dead mother all along :) You may be
falling too much for all the scenes of mother "talking" to Norman, when in fact
it is he who is mimicking his mother's former voice. All the literature,
critics, and film scholars who I have read and met never once talked about the
film as actually being about the supernatural. It is *axiomatic* , in the world
of cinema and film culture (and even with people who have never seen the film),
that Norman's mother only exists in his mind. He has kept her dead body around
the house via taxidermy. There is no "possession* by his mother's "ghost".
Shhesh.....someone talk me down from here :)
>Says who?
Please post a few of those articles that say the contrary...and be sure to
include what Hitchcock has said about his own film. Maybe include something by
Robert Bloch too, the author of the novel. He didn't write about possession
either, and Hitchcock never deviated from that.
Do you learn about films from what others have read...or from what you see in
the actual films? :) I do both, and I am sure you do too. But to be that far
off on Psycho.....oh well. Here again, we can interpret films the way we want,
whether we base it on what we read or not. Or whether or not this is what the
filmmaker actually intends. I don't do this, unless I know that there is
convincing documentation to support it.
I think what's happening here is what I have thought all along. Padraig is
testing me....ha ha ha :) And Geoffrey....you're in on it too huh??....Oh
golly...you guys......I knew it!!!! ROTFL
Mark Oates
cine...@hknet.com
Regarding the current The Shining discussion, the following comments from Kubrick may ...
contribute ... in some way.
*... the most likely [explanation] seemed to be that the strange things that were happening
would finally be explained as the products of Jack¹s imagination. It¹s not until Grady, the ghost of
the former caretaker who axed to death his family, slides open the bolt of the larder door,
allowing Jack to escape, that you are left with no other explanation but the supernatural.*
In which Kubrick has said he believes.
Kubrick also explains, indirectly, why Jack¹s madness is apparent at such an early stage in the
film, which I raise because a criticism frequently levelled at TS is that one reason the film *fails*
(oh yeah?) is that it doesn¹t show us the gradual descent into dysfunction and insanity.
SK: *... if you play by the rules and respect the preparation and pace required to establish
realism, it takes longer to make a point than it does, say, in fantasy. At the same time, it is
possible that this very work that contributes to a story¹s realism may weaken its grip on the
unconscious.*
My copy, BTW, says it¹s running time is 115 minutes (PAL), and is released by Warner Home
Video UK. So what am I missing? Those skeletons, for one, I think, and some Wendy and Dany
scene(s)?
Derek
LamaSivartDoz
cine...@hknet.com wrote:
>
> Regarding the current The Shining discussion, the following comments from Kubrick may ...
> contribute ... in some way.
>
> would finally be explained as the products of Jackąs imagination. Itąs not until Grady, the ghost of
> the former caretaker who axed to death his family, slides open the bolt of the larder door,
> In which Kubrick has said he believes.
>
This is the quote I've been referring to.
> My copy, BTW, says itąs running time is 115 minutes (PAL), and is released by Warner Home
> Video UK. So what am I missing? Those skeletons, for one, I think, and some Wendy and Dany
> scene(s)?
>
> Derek
You have the same release as I, i e the European version. Apparently the
differences are listed in the FAQ (see post elsewhere).
MarkExact4
If you don't have 144 minutes of The Shining, then you are "sadly" missing out
on some scenes. Geoff? The FAQ does mention all the missing scenes right? I'm
sure it does :) And the images certainly cover a few shots from those missing
scenes, since I used the US laser to capture them.
Mark Oates
Joe Berry
Padraig L Henry wrote:
> Is Kubrick confusing the uncanny with the
> supernatural, the marvelous, here? This requires further
> consideration.
Padraig, perhaps you can elaborate on the problem you
see here. From your essay, it's not clear to me that
Freud makes the same distinction Todorov does between
the "uncanny" and the "marvelous." It seems to me that
SK would only be guilty of confusing the two if the Freud
essay to whom he refers also makes this distinction. I
confess I haven't read the Freud in years, and alas, have
no copy around to check.
In any event, thanks for posting your thoughts.
<jnb>
Padraig L Henry
On 6 Apr 1998 04:49:39 GMT, marke...@aol.com (MarkExact4) wrote:
Padraig writes:
The whole future of civilisation depends on resolving Hallorann`s
enigmatic dismembered arm, Mark :-). I`ll certainly say one thing
though: Your current frenetic output is certainly considerable. But
you seem to have adopted the position of refuting anything I say about
The Shining because of a pre-existing unresolved non-issue: Look,
there is definitely >something< amiss about that shot of Hallorann
lying dead on the floor. I`m not imagining it nor are the writers of
countless analyses of the film who allude to that scene. You argue
that it is due to the distorting effects of a zoom shot. So be it. So
let`s drop it. (And I do appreciate that this is your area of
expertise.)
>
>No, I don't "refute" things that you say about TS because of your claims of
>Hallorann's hacked-off arm :) First you insisted that his arm is hacked off,
>now it's "there is definitely >something< amiss about that shot of Hallorann
>lying dead on the floor". Are you speaking of his arm still? Or are you
>speaking of something else now? :) Don't be evasive son.....spit it
>out....this is a newsgroup. And here you are again, bringing up what *others*
>have written and analyzed about that scene. Why not post a few portions of
>those articles (if they're not at the upcoming upgraded TKS).Or better
>yet....*you* tell me and everyone else *in your own words* what it is that you
>see in that scene or in that shot. Don't be shy....this is a newsgroup.
>
>If there is no hacked-off arm, then why did you bring it up in the first place?
>Well, you could have been in error....that's okay. But let us know what it is
>that you think is amiss.
Dismembered arm, Mark, as this is in fact a newsgroup. (Your own arms
must be getting fairly fatigued by now; and I`m beginning to suffer
from repetitive eye strain myself). Firstly, I said that The Shining
is not <>simply< a ghost story, but that it fundamentally subverts
that genre, unlike Psycho and most other films which conform to the
narrative certainties of the horror genre. It is also a melodrama, one
which >also< subverts >that< genre. Hence the attribution of
"fantastic", a hesitation away from the safeties of narrative closure
of whatever genre. But as this is stated to be a newsgroup, I`ll also
address your question about the brutally dismembered AWOL army.
Secondly, and because we appear to be in a newsgroup, there >is<
something problematical about the Hallorann death-scene. And, owing to
the fact that we are rumoured to be addressing a newsgroup, here`s how
Walter Metz, who I quoted from in my article to this same apparent
newsgroup, describes Hallorann`s death:
"However, his death is handled in very much the same way that Carol
Clover describes of all male`s deaths in slasher films, "The death of
a male is always swift; even if the victim grasps what is happening to
him, he has no time to react or register terror ... The death of a
male is moreover more likely than the death of a female to be viewed
from a distance ... or indeed to happen off screen and not be viewed
at all." This is a fairly accurate description of Hallorann`s death:
we see Jack strike one blow to Hallorann`s chest. Then we cut away.
The next time we see Hallorann`s body, its arms have been chopped off.
We never witness their dismemberment."
=========Walter Metz,
=========Towards A Post-Structural Influence In Film Genre Study:
========= Intertextuality And The Shining, Film Criticism, Vol. XXII,
========= No. 1, Fall, 1997).
As we appear to be having some doubts about this newsgroup, perhaps,
Mark, you now have the opportunity to get >really< angry with the
dismembered-arm-supporting Metz. TWO dismembered arms! And in one
fractured recollection of a newsgroup.
But this is the newsgroup here, sir, this has always been the
newsgroup here. And we are all honourable citizens, and this saga will
run on forever and ever and ever ...
Padraig
And the sun shines out as it spits down upon the day at
alt.mortuary.hallorann. A farewell to ... arms ... and the man.
Padraig L Henry
On 6 Apr 1998 04:49:39 GMT, marke...@aol.com (MarkExact4) wrote:
> I have *NEVER* seen any serious literature that would have me believe that
>Psycho is leading us to the conclusion of a serial killer, and then because of
>a single few seconds of film at the conclusion (and a purely symbolically visual
>one at that), the whole film has been about "possession" by the dead mother all along :)
No, Mark, you have just never interpreted the film so. And don`t be so
selective in your choice or interpretation of film literature.
> It is *axiomatic* , in the world
>of cinema and film culture (and even with people who have never seen the film),
>that Norman's mother only exists in his mind. He has kept her dead body around
>the house via taxidermy. There is no "possession* by his mother's "ghost".
>Shhesh.....someone talk me down from here :)
No again, Mark. What is axiomatic is the misguided belief in the
reverse. You`re maintaining that The Shining is a supernatural yarn
while Psycho is a melodrama about madness. I argued otherwise in my
article.
>Please post a few of those articles that say the contrary...and be sure to
>include what Hitchcock has said about his own film.
Eh, Mark, you criticise me for quoting from academic analyses to
support my arguments (implying that this is some kind of "weakness" on
my part). Now you`re contradicting yourself and demanding academic etc
quotes and analyses to support >all< of my arguments. This is
something which you seriously need to start doing yourself along with
a questioning of your assumptions about film genres.
>Maybe include something by
>Robert Bloch too, the author of the novel. He didn't write about possession
>either, and Hitchcock never deviated from that.
That`s your unsupported interpretation. (Don`t you know what a horror
film is?).
>
>Do you learn about films from what others have read...or from what you see in
>the actual films? :) I do both, and I am sure you do too. But to be that far
>off on Psycho.....
Once again, on the contrary. You are 100% off on both Psycho and The
Shining. (And >stop< comparing Kubrick`s The Shining to King`s
escapist fiction, please).
>oh well. Here again, we can interpret films the way we want,
>whether we base it on what we read or not.
This is what you persist in doing.
>Or whether or not this is what the
>filmmaker actually intends. I don't do this, unless I know that there is
>convincing documentation to support it.
But your posts have been arguing from the perspective of the
subjective, intuitive film solipsist, Mark: you and the film. You
demand that we "use our own ideas" without reference to the wider
world of film discourse. Now you`re back-handedly sneaking in an
admission that your ideas >are< influenced by others, though you fail
to mention anyone or to provide specific citations.
What any film-maker >intends< is not relevant to a reading of their
film, except insofar as highlighting the contrasts between the two.
>
>I think what's happening here is what I have thought all along. Padraig is
>testing me....ha ha ha :) And Geoffrey....you're in on it too huh??....Oh
>golly...you guys......I knew it!!!! ROTFL
>
>Mark Oates
Yes, it`s all a ghostly conspiracy conjured up by the Overlook`s past
amazing inhabitants and now infiltrating, contaminating, and taking up
residence at alt.movies.kubrick. Better start shining :-) and
undergoing a colonic irrigation of bodily fluids.
Padraig
Padraig L Henry
On Sun, 05 Apr 1998 09:24:41 -0800, pga...@idt.net (Peter Gahan)
wrote:
>Well done, Mark. I'm with you 98% of the way. I couldn't quite get
>Padraig's essay. That TS is about a dysfunctional family? DIdn't we know
>that already?
Nothing of the sort, Peter. Don`t be so glib and don`t dismiss
something because, as you have just admitted, you "couldn`t quite get
it". "I don`t understand it: therefore it is false. And what I do
understand: that is obvious". You prefer to dumb down too?
Padraig
Padraig L Henry
On 6 Apr 1998 19:59:30 GMT, "Joe Berry" <joeb...@mindspring.com>
wrote:
>Padraig L Henry wrote:
>
>> Is Kubrick confusing the uncanny with the
>> supernatural, the marvelous, here? This requires further
>> consideration.
>
>Padraig, perhaps you can elaborate on the problem you
>see here. From your essay, it's not clear to me that
>Freud makes the same distinction Todorov does between
>the "uncanny" and the "marvelous."
It would have been rather difficult for Freud to have made any
comments about the "marvelous" given that Todorov`s analysis was only
published in 1975. But that is completely beside the point. Freud does
make a distinction between the uncanny and the supernatural, a
fundamental one. Kubrick >appears< not to, or to confuse the two, at
least on the basis of his interview with Ciment. But then, people are
finding it difficult to distinguish between what Kubrick is saying
about King`s novel and what he is saying about his own film. And
between what Kubrick is saying about his film and the film itself. And
between what happens in the novel and what happens in the film. And
between what actually happens in the film and what is believed to
happen. Hardly surprising these discontinuities: this, among many
other things, is what the film is about.
> It seems to me that
>SK would only be guilty of confusing the two if the Freud
>essay to whom he refers also makes this distinction. I
>confess I haven't read the Freud in years, and alas, have
>no copy around to check.
Freud had >very< strong views about the supernatural, and none of them
were supernatural.
Padraig
Peter Gahan
In article <352a70ed...@news.iol.ie>, path...@iol.ie (Padraig L
Henry) wrote:
Ouch, that slap on the wrist almost hurt. ;-)
I'm sorry to have been glib, but your genre-ic speculations were a bit far
removed for me, and the distinctions between horror and melodrama, between
the fantastic and the marvellous, the uncanny and ... whatever, don't
illuminate TS much, even from a post-structuralist perspective.
But comparing TS to the dysfunctional family and the Oedipal drama of
Ray's Bigger than Life, is much nearer the mark. I haven't seen Ray's
movie, but it is likely SK has, and that it has left its visual mark on TS
along with a thousand other movies. One of which might be Sam Fuller's
Shock Corridor which I saw the other day, with that repeated symmetrical
shot of the corridor...
Peter Gahan
In article <352a7075...@news.iol.ie>, path...@iol.ie (Padraig L
Henry) wrote:
.
> "CarolClover describes ... male`s deaths in slasher films, "The death of
> a male is always swift; even if the victim grasps what is happening to
> him, he has no time to react or register terror ... The death of a
> male is moreover more likely than the death of a female to be viewed
> from a distance ... or indeed to happen off screen and not be viewed
> at all." This is a fairly accurate description of Hallorann`s death:
> we see Jack strike one blow to Hallorann`s chest.
Metz is contradicting himself here, Padraig. Read it again:
> The death of a
> male is moreover more likely than the death of a female to be viewed
> from a distance ... or indeed to happen off screen and not be viewed
> at all." This is a fairly accurate description of Hallorann`s death:
> we see Jack strike one blow to Hallorann`s chest...
MarkExact4
Cinereal writes:
>As it seems some hats may be being eaten in Chicago in December,
>chalk me up for a lightly grilled sombrero if I'm wrong about this.
There;s no way that you could be wrong about it. Oh don't worry Derek....no one
will be eating hats or crows in Chicago. By that time we'll have moved onto
something else....like EWS for instance, if it appears in Dec.
Oh Hail Columbia......I hope no one gets axed in EWS. :) Maybe we'll be
talking about the "inconsistencies" in what we see during the sex
scenes....."Oh look!! Jennifer Jason Leigh has no breasts!! They're not
there...they're gone!!!"
Mark Oates
cine...@hknet.com
Padraig L Henry wrote:
quoting Walter Metz:
> "However, his death is handled in very much the same way that Carol
> Clover describes of all male`s deaths in slasher films, "The death of
> a male is always swift; even if the victim grasps what is happening to
> him, he has no time to react or register terror ... The death of a
> male is moreover more likely than the death of a female to be viewed
> from a distance ... or indeed to happen off screen and not be viewed
> at all."
I'm intrigued -- is this statistically arrived at? *Slasher* films only?
This is a fairly accurate description of Hallorann`s death:
> we see Jack strike one blow to Hallorann`s chest. Then we cut away.
> The next time we see Hallorann`s body, its arms have been chopped off.
> We never witness their dismemberment."
Metz is wrong. Because parts of this debate seem to hinge on
Halloran's anatomic structural integrity, last night I did a frame by frame
post mortem, and as far as I'm able to discern there is not a shred of
evidence either in visuals or in editing suggestion, that Halloran is
missing either or both arms.
We see Halloran decked twice. Once when Jack performs some
impromptu open heart surgery, and a second time when Wendy
is skating through the corridors and comes across the incapacitated
nigger cook, at which point there is a crash zoom in on the body, at the end
of which we see Halloran's left arm, intact and wearing a black glove,
but visually foreshortened due to the compressing effect of the long
focal length. The right arm is hidden from view anyway on the second
view of the body so there is NO way to establish its condition.
As it seems some hats may be being eaten in Chicago in December,
chalk me up for a lightly grilled sombrero if I'm wrong about this.
By the same token, except where the evidence under consideration
is crucial to establishing a particular analysis, let's not dwell
solely on our own perceptual incontinuities. :-}
Derek